Fuji X-T2 Introduced

Fuji updates what I have long considered to be the best human interface digital camera on the market with 24mp, much better AF and much better video:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/pho ... ds-4k-x-t2

Fairly comprehensive first impressions review:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilm-x-t2-first-impressions-review

And more of a features/opinion piece by a Fuji fan:
https://luminous-landscape.com/fuji-ann ... 500-flash/

looks impressive. With 3 small zooms (10-24, 18-55, 55-200) and the new 80mm (1:1) one can do most of landscape and flower photography and also insects that aren't too shy. Easy to carry everything up a mountain.

How is the dynamic range of the Fuji sensors compared to a Sony sensor?

Markus Jais wrote:looks impressive. With 3 small zooms (10-24, 18-55, 55-200) and the new 80mm (1:1) one can do most of landscape and flower photography and also insects that aren't too shy. Easy to carry everything up a mountain.

How is the dynamic range of the Fuji sensors compared to a Sony sensor?

This camera uses the same Sony sensor as what is used in the a6300.  Fuji just uses a different top layer called X-trans that is not a traditional Bayer layer but what's underneath the color array is the same BSI copper wire APS-C sensor that's in the a6300 which I consider to be the best APS-C sensor currently on the market.  In fact, the only reason they were able to offer the major upgrade in the AF system is because they are using this sensor with it's many on sensor phase detect autofocus points.

My personal preference is a normal Bayer top layer as the RAW conversion programs handle it better and I personally feel that for my photography there is no benefit in X-trains and in some regards it is a drawback. I have often written that this is the only reason my light APS-C kit is Sony and not Fuji.  If they offered the same Bayer sensor in, say an X-T2B, I would order it!

Hi,
Fujifilm X T2 is a new versions of X T1 and is the best Fujifilm DSLR camera. It has 24megapixel camera with 169 phase detection points. It also has 13 contrast detection AF points on each side of its frame and all in a whole of 325 AF points overall. It captures 4k videos footage and provides best quality videos and captures good images.
Get more on: http://www.gizmobeat.info/first-impress ... ete-review

I've been looking to replace my walking around gear (7D2/100-400V2) because it's just too noisey if I have to jack up the ISO due to low light.  This looks like a good alternative although I dread the thought of dealing with three different systems.  I wish Sony had a good 100-400.

EJ:

Would you please elaborate on what you think are the problems that the x-trans top layer brings in comparison to an image with a traditional Bayer layer? Is the problem something that would be obvious all the time or only at the extremes of processing, especially for a more casual user?

Thanks.

Richard b.

Richard B. wrote:EJ:

Would you please elaborate on what you think are the problems that the x-trans top layer brings in comparison to an image with a traditional Bayer layer? Is the problem something that would be obvious all the time or only at the extremes of processing, especially for a more casual user?

Thanks.

Richard b.

It's just really tough to demosaic without some weird artifacting.  There are some RAW converters that do it better than others but Adobe is among the worst for the X-Trans.  It manifests itself the worst at sharp green/white interfaces.  It isn't going to be a problem for the fast majority of users but for the critical ones, it can be a problem and you would need to use Fuji's bundled converter or other less popular tools like Irrident Developer.  C1 Pro does a credible job but not as well as it does on Bayer sensors.

E.J. Peiker wrote:Fairly comprehensive first impressions review:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilm-x-t2-first-impressions-review

And more of a features/opinion piece by a Fuji fan:
https://luminous-landscape.com/fuji-announces-new-x-t2-ef-x500-flash/

Very interesting reading in the DPReview article.  They're obviously a big fan of the new X-T2.  I spent a lot of time playing and studying the Image Comparison Tool, comparing the X-T2 with the Sony a6000, a6300, and a6500, the Sony DSC-RX100 II along with my current Nikon D810.  The X-T2 seemed to stand up well (slightly less contrast) against the Sony a6000-6500; killed the RX100, and sucked against the D810.  All of that was to be expected and it wasn't a surprise.  Well, actually the RX100 was a bit of a surprise; I thought the RX100 might be a little closer to the X-T2 than it was.

All in all, the X-T2 looks darn impressive.  Back to the drawing board, once again!!

You are looking at a 2.7x crop sensor vs a 1.5x crop sensor, that's almost two stops of light collection difference per pixel as the difference in megapixels is relatively minimal.  The RX-100 should be quite a bit worse than the X-T2.  But then they are VERY different cameras - shirt pocket vs a full blown compact DSLR size and form factor.

Richard B. wrote:EJ:

Would you please elaborate on what you think are the problems that the x-trans top layer brings in comparison to an image with a traditional Bayer layer? Is the problem something that would be obvious all the time or only at the extremes of processing, especially for a more casual user?

Thanks.

Richard b.

Hey Richard, if you are still on board with this thread, read the Fujifilm section of this link - it explains what I mean a bit more:
http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/wha ... rless.html

Thanks E.J.

As an old film guy, it would have been fun to use a camera with the traditional top mount controls. I'll wait and see what develops.

Richard

Yeah me too and having used both an X-T1 and X-T2 I will tell you that the X-T2 is the best handling digital camera for old photographers like us ever made.

E.J. Peiker wrote:Yeah me too and having used both an X-T1 and X-T2 I will tell you that the X-T2 is the best handling digital camera for old photographers like us ever made.

After reading about the X-T2 I'm frothing at the mouth for controls I remember and know how to use.  However, as you well know, EJ, I'm a techno dud.  I truly don't understand the differences in the X Trans and Bayer layers.  My question - Using Capture One 10 Pro as a RAW convertor, will there be any REAL WORLD difference between the two.  By REAL WORLD, I mean looking at the resulting image at 100% and not pixel peeping.  If so, can you tell me what the differences will be. 

The X-T2 looks like an answer to a prayer to old time analog users - a way to be in the digital world while my feet stand in the analog world.

Bill, Capture One does a very good job on the Xtrans array, Adobe does not (although they have dramatically improved over time but it still has issues as outlined in the Thom Hogan link above) so you aren't likely to see much of a real world effect with C1.

Here is the difference between Bayer and X-trans color arrays:

Thanks, as always, EJ.